Health-adjusted life expectancy in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past century, life expectancy at birth in Canada has risen substantially. However, these gains in the quantity of life say little about gains in the quality of life. DATA AND METHODS: Health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE), an indicator of quality of life, was estimated for the household and institutional populations combined every four years from 1994/1995 to 2015. Health status was measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 instrument in two national population health surveys, and was used to adjust life expectancy. The percentage of the population living in health-related institutions was estimated based on the Census of Population. Attribute-deleted HALE was calculated to determine how various aspects of health status contributed to the differences between life expectancy and HALE. RESULTS: HALE has increased in Canada. Greater gains among males have narrowed the gap between males and females. The ratio of HALE to life expectancy changed little for males, and a marginal improvement was observed for females aged 65 or older. Mobility problems and pain, the latter mainly among females, accounted for an increased share of the burden of ill health over time. Exclusion of the institutional population significantly increased the estimates of HALE and yielded higher ratios of HALE to life expectancy. DISCUSSION: Although people are living longer, the share of years spent in good functional health has remained fairly constant. Data for both the household and institutional populations are necessary for a complete picture of health expectancy in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".